Exploring Photons: Light and Bosons

In summary, the conversation revolved around the topic of photons in relation to atoms and their behavior. There was a discussion on the existence and nature of photons and electrons in atoms, with some proposing that photons are anti-energy and electrons emit photons as a result of energy release. The idea of starting with one force and one force carrier was also brought up, with the suggestion that this could lead to a simpler understanding of the universe. Other topics included the structure of atoms and the periodic table, with a mathematical link being made between current theory and a proposed arrangement of fundamental particle nuclei. In conclusion, there are still many unanswered questions and differing opinions on the nature and behavior of photons and electrons in atoms.
  • #1
Before the change overmorp FZ, meteor, Hurkyl, dg, Tom, and myself had an interesting forum on photons. As this does not appear to have been revived yet, I have put my almost complete revision of a page on Light on my site. This should be read in conjunction with the page on Bosons.
Can we get going again?
Last edited by a moderator:
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
Error Message

Sorry, the page or file you're looking for is not here.
  • #3
  • #4
Just added Spin page. there are now four pages ready for comment Particles, Bosons, Spin and Light .
  • #5
In PF2 many debates about particles, space and time were carried out, but for some reason all controversies were reduced to a light. It cannot be forget, that the nature has also other modes of transmission of information about atoms and molecules. For example, the information about smell and taste of substance cannot be transmitted by means of quantums of electromagnetic radiation.
I think, you set the problem absolutely correctly - it is necessary to exclude spare notions from debates. In relationships with said, I should like to hear answers to two simple questions:
Are there photons in atoms?
Are there electrons in atoms?
  • #6
Are there photons in atoms?
Yes and no. No real photons, but virtual photons do govern em interactions.

Are there electrons in atoms?
More or less.
  • #7
It has been proven by experiment that an electron consist of a nucleus surrounded by pairs of 1EM+ and 1EM- corpuscular quanta (Koltick et al, Purdue University).
Photons are emitted by electrons just as gluons are emitted by quarks I give my opinion of how this works on the Boson page. As far as I am aware this is the only solution that predicts the correct number of gluons. Quantum theory predicts nine when there are only eight, this is covered in quantum theory diagram form by leaving one square blank in a block of 3x3 squares.
My solution is that both photon and gluons are detached packets of the bonding field and again as far as I am aware, this is the only explanation on offer that explains the cause of the difference in behavior between bossons, and leptons and baryons.
Most of the subscribers to Physics forums are mathematicians with little interest in the none mathematical side of particle physics (i.e. the structure of matter) or the cause of actions in a none mathematical form. Which is a pity because the mathematics are almost perfect and I do not think the final touches can be put to existing theories until the cause events and actions are fully understood.
Unifying gravity with the other forces is one case where I believe my model offers a route to a solution but trying to get any interest in this has so far failed; so let's here from those interested in the practical explanation of the structure and actions of quantum and particles.
  • #8
Very well FZ!
Next two questions.
Photons in the vacuum (i.e. in the space between atoms) - is reality or virtuality?
Electrons in the vacuum - is reality or virtuality?

(e+)+(e–) is positronium, which annihilates into two gamma-quantum.
If can we confirm that electron consists of photons?
Or free electron is geometrical variety of photon?
Atoms have a form of polyhedrons. For forms of other particles there are only suggestions.
You said: “My proposal is that we should start with one force and one force carrier and not add any other entity until we run out of explanations using just the one force and its carrier; and then only if we can account for the creation of the new entity. The result of this method is, as Newton suggested; that the universe is a thing of great simplicity”.
I support your proposal and should like start with form of electron.
If we will be able to calculate a form of electrons and photons, then we will be able better to understand the nature of interactions.
  • #9
photons are anti energy.electrons emit a photon because it's releasing energy that is created by a force hitting it,sending it into motion toward the nucleus.when it recoils the energy has to be released or the electron will fly out of the energy state.since motion is caused by anti energy repelling against spacetime,a photon is anti energy.that why it travels at light speed.so the electron converts it's excess anti energy into a photons,at a certain wavelength to represent the amount of energy being released,and emits it.
  • #10
What do we mean when we say that 'electrons absorb photons'...I'm pretty much sure that it couldn't be that electrons store photons...
  • #11
I agree that we should start with one entity and all of the observed phenomenas must be effect of it one. But we have a number of ways which not coordinated and inconsistent on today. Herewith, all of these are founded on a reliable experimental data and scrupulous mathematical calculations. As a result a picture of the world became complex, though it has enormous white spots and.. it is not beautiful quite. The last quality is a main argument for searching for of the other way, on my glance.
I do offer go in future with Time. In direct sense.
  • #12
Thanks for replies.
Discovered that the book I use for elements is out of date and more data is available on the net, so I am rewriting Elasticity page.
The points you raise need a little thought and I will post a reply within 24 hours.
Meanwhile please take a look at riduncan 'Periodic Table' forum. He has linked the periodic table to Pascals triangle and I have pointed out that his arrangement also contains my proposed arrangement of fundamental particle nuclei.
This is the first mathematical link between my proposal and current theory and tentative as it is it is still a start towards a mathematical theory.
Note that my proposal has one extra ratio (2:0). Nature has a habit of throwing in an extra factor. In the fractional sequence used for charge in The Fractional Quantum Hall Experiment and my wave length measurements, the sequence always starts at 1/3 (1/3 2/5 3/7 etc) except in the case of interplanetary distances where it is
1/5 1/3 2/5 3/7 etc.
I have some reason to believe that 1/9 and 1/7 can be found making the sequence 1/9 1/7 1/5 1/3 2/5 3/7 etc, but is this mathematically correct?
  • #13
The points raised are re-arranged in a convenient order for replies as follows-

1) Photons are anti-energy (chosenone)
2) Reply to Michael F Dmitriyev
3) Are there photons in atoms?
4) Are photons in vacuum real or virtual?
5) Are there electrons in atoms?
6) Are electrons in vacuum real or virtual?
7) What do I mean by the statement ‘electrons absorb photons’?
8) Is free electron geometrical variety of photon?

1) In the Single Force model there is no anti-energy because vacuum being its own anti-force produces only one type of force carrier. (I.e. the vacuum force of each Zero Point acts in the opposite direction to its neighbours). This means that I disagree with ‘chosenone’. Hopefully in the end one of us will be proven correct as it would be disappointing if we are both wrong, meanwhile we must both continue to push our own theories.
2) Michael F Dmitriyev’s comments are always fascinating and clearly he is way ahead of me in knowledge. But Newton wrote that God’s universe is ‘a thing of great simplicity’ and Einstein wrote that faced with a choice of answers he always found that the simplest answer turned out to be the correct one. Of course, what Newton and Einstein regard as simple is not necessarily what I would regard as simple! Even so if one starts with nothing then the first few steps must be very simple, which is why I stick to studying the creation and structure of fundamental particles; straying into the structure of atoms only to make a particular point (elasticity, for example). So my reply to Michael is that complexity begins with the construction of atoms and not before.
3) Now for the questions about photons. Just as I propose to remove the outer half-wave of gravitons to create EM+ quanta, so also do I propose removing a layer (or surface wave) of an electron binding field in order to create a real photon. This is illustrated on the Boson page. The manner in which photons travel in a vacuum is dealt with on the Light page. Because photons do not have their own vacuum field or Zero Point they obey different laws from those used to explain the behaviour of Leptons and Baryons and have spin1 and not spin1/2. While it is popular to use the term ‘virtual photons’ I attempt to show that the virtual photon is really a wave on the gravity spectrum. This means that the light we see from ‘virtual photons’ is actually a Casimir effect caused by the deceleration of the gravity wave as it collides with the EM spectrum of atoms and electrons.
4) Hence the binding field of electrons absorbs energy in the form of photons or photon waves and enters an excited state only returning to normal when it emits a photon (it cannot emit a photon wave). It is in many ways a question of which came first the chicken or the egg. In this respect electrons can be regarded as being in one of two states a) waiting for a photon or b) about to discard a photon. If an electron receives more than one photon it moves into higher states but then has more to emit. Theoretically there is no upper limit but in reality the elasticity of electrons limits their growth just as elasticity limits the growth of atoms.
  • #14
At first, electron represented as a charged revolved ball. Then H.A. Lorentz had shown mathematically, that the moving electron is similar to an oblate orb.
To match the theory and experiment, there was a necessity to find inside of electron a kernel. And it was made by well-trodden way.
When Johan Kepler searched for his famous equations, he out went from the theoretical supposition (postulate), that the God-Sun is surrounded by celestial orbs and on each orb one angel lives. Each angel jolts and rolls on the orb own planet.
Naive?! Nevertheless, equations by Kepler are exact.
I do not think, that for 400 years the electrophysiology of a human brain could considerably vary. Therefore we should be very self-critical to the own theories.
I consider, that the electron has the form of a ring (or, at any rate, form of the disk) inside which space, time and energy can be transformed.
The same concerns and to atoms.
Who lives inside of atoms, kernels or angels, I do not know. But for me is not the convincing application, that at bombardment of atoms by particles (or rays) these particles interact with center of atom. The atoms have concrete geometry and huge mechanical strength. At the same time atoms very easily lose mechanical link with each other under operation of photons.
In the attached file you can see the mathematically possible configurations of electrons-rings in different excited states.


  • e_1.doc
    40 KB · Views: 263
  • #15
I do not think we are all that far apart. Based on the work of ‘Koltick et al’ I believe an electron consist of a nucleus surrounded by corpuscular quantum pairs. In a stationary electron (zero temperature) this structure would be spherical. A spinning electron would be disc shaped and at a high spin rate the structure would break down to form a cloud that would form a shell orbiting the atomic nucleus.
As I understand it you believe the photon is always a separate entity whereas I believe it is a detached part of an electron binding field and therefore not a separate particle until detached; I do not think either point of view can be proved conclusively at present, please let me know if you think otherwise.
We come at the problem from two different points of view, yours is the mathematical theoretical approach that seeks numerical perfection. Mine is to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ which has to be done in words that lack the perfection of numbers. However both approaches are considered essential to explain the complete picture as can be seen in the recently published special issue of ‘Scientific American’ titled ‘the edge of physics’.
  • #16
Originally posted by elas
We come at the problem from two different points of view, yours is the mathematical theoretical approach that seeks numerical perfection. Mine is to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ ...

My mathematical theoretical approach to a problem is based on outcomes of my experiments with ring oscillators. The ring oscillator works not as a linear harmonic oscillator of Hertz. The equations for energy of a ring oscillator are more complex, but they can logically answer problems:
- what are quantum numbers
- what is the fine structure constant
- what is Planck’s constant
Besides, these equations equally feature resonance processes, as in macro-objects, and micro-objects. I have in view of a spectral characteristic of atoms.
In PF2 I explicated topic “ Polytron I ”, in which I have shown some possibilities of my approach in application to atom of hydrogen. I want to prolong talk and to begin a new theme “ Polytron II ”, where I would like to occupy with atom of helium.
Now let me to return to electrons.
If an electron to present as a ring, irrespective of there is whether or not in it a kernel, on perimeter of a ring it is possible to dispose some number of waves. This is one of quantum numbers.
Minimum number = 1. In this sense one half-wave can have properties EM+, accordingly other half-wave will have properties EM–.
According to my suppositions (and calculations), now the universe is in that state, when the electrons have 117 and 118 waves. It corresponds to temperature of the universe about 3K, i.e. Cosmic Background Radiation.
However, waves in electrons cannot be considered as photons. The experiment displays that the frequency of photons is shaped as a difference of return natural frequencies of an oscillator.
Here are most composite problems: HOW and WHY?
  • #17
Photons are a subject of heightened interest. In “Theory Development” we see “Photons” by elas and simultaneously in “Theoretical Physics” we see “photons …” by Stranger.
It would be desirable to hope, that as a result of tempestuous debate we shall hear from somebody fresh and original idea.
Let's turn to comets. Under operation of stream of photons the atoms of the frozen gas evaporate from a surface of a comet and move in the same direction as rays of a light.
Now let's discuss a comet, which flies far from power sources of light. On such comet the microwave radiation of the universe CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation) operates only. CBR is isotropic radiation and it penetrates uniformly throw space in all directions.
Therefore, the vaporized atoms will feel inhibiting action only at the expense of a longitudinal Doppler effect. On a head of a comet more short-wave and vigorous photons will operate, whereas on the part of a tail less vigorous photons will operate.
Thereby, interaction between the photon and atom will be expressed in that that on the area of surface of atom, in which gets a photon, will for a short time be formed increased concentration of energy.
If we shall begin to speak about a momentum transfer, we need a mass of photon, which misses.
If we shall express impulse of a photon through the Planck’s constant, we cannot explain, how electromagnetic energy was converted into a kinetic energy of driving atom.
If we shall state, that in atom there are photons, it is known, that the photons do not interact with each other.
Where don't rush, all over are wedges.
Last edited:
  • #18
Originally posted by elas
My apologies, the correct site address is-
Dear ELAS,
I reading your "Particles, Forces and the Law of Economy" and naturally that I have much questions. I tried to send you a message to
But I got return from Mail Delivery Subsystem: “MAILBOX NOT FOUND User unknown”.
Possible there is a mistake in the address?
Please, answer me to my second e-mail polytron@sibnet.ru

1. What are photons and why are they important in the study of light?

Photons are particles of light that carry energy and have no mass. They are important in the study of light because they help us understand the behavior of light, such as how it travels and interacts with matter.

2. How do bosons play a role in the behavior of photons?

Bosons are a type of subatomic particle that includes photons. They are responsible for the wave-like behavior of light, and they also help explain phenomena such as refraction and diffraction.

3. Can photons be observed or measured?

Yes, photons can be observed and measured through various experiments and instruments, such as spectrometers and detectors. However, their exact position and momentum cannot be simultaneously known, as stated by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

4. How does the energy of a photon relate to its wavelength and frequency?

The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency and inversely proportional to its wavelength. This is described by the equation E = hf, where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is frequency.

5. What are some practical applications of understanding photons and bosons?

Understanding photons and bosons has led to many practical applications, such as the development of lasers, solar panels, and medical imaging technologies like MRI machines. It also plays a crucial role in the field of quantum mechanics and the study of subatomic particles.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
  • Beyond the Standard Models
  • Beyond the Standard Models
  • Feedback and Announcements